Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
Scott Adams
Let's try to do a show. It'll be amazing. Let me check the stocks. The s and P500, it's up a little bit. Tesla is down a little bit. But I had a big run yesterday and my Nuclear stocks are up 7% today. Nice. Not bad. All right, let's get your comments going and we'll have the show that you deserve. Really, it's the one you deserve. It's that good. So, anything happened in the news? Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, schelz or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's a dopamine. At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Oh, that was good. Good stuff. All right. Well, you may have heard that the war between Israel and Iran might be over. There's a ceasefire declared. I'll tell you my favorite parts about that. I think my number one favorite part is that Trump has already branded it the 12 Day War. Now, is that perfect or is that perfect? The 12 day war. The 12 day war is just such good branding that I think one of the reasons he was angry that both sides were cheating a little bit in the ceasefire is that it was turning it into a 13 day war. And that's really bad branding. Nobody wants to have a 13 day war. 12 day war. 12 day war. That sounds like you meant business and you got stuff done. So, yeah, that's a good brand. Well, as you know, Iran had to. Had to respond by firing 14 ballistic missiles at a U.S. base. But we were warned in advance, so there was no. No damage. All the. All the. All the missiles got shot down. Now, I'm talking about. God, things are happening so fast. Was it yesterday morning? So I'm talking about Iran responding to the bombing of Fordow and the other nuclear sites. They had to do something, but they had this narrow little window of what was possible without making things worse. And so they did some kabuki theater pretend attack and they warned the US first through, I guess, through a cutter, and next thing you know, they're like, all right, we're Good. We're good. Are you good? We're good. But then there was still the war between Israel and Iran. And apparently Trump has brokered a ceasefire. Now, will it hold? Well, we'll talk about that, but JD Vance says we have destroyed the Iranian nuclear program and zero Americans have died. Now, if the ceasefire holds, and for at least the foreseeable future, Iran does not try in any visible way to recreate its threat to its neighbors. That might end the question of who was our best president of all time. It's going to put Trump right at the top of the best president of all time. If it holds now, anything could happen, maybe things go wrong. But at the moment, it's probably one of the most impressive acts of presidenting you'll ever see in your life. And I don't know if there were better presidents before I was born, when the media was different. I don't know. But, wow, am I impressed. We'll, we'll talk about that. So just Monday, that was yesterday, Israel, Israel was still attacking some of the symbols of the Iranian regime. They, they blew the, the front gate off the Evan prison where the dissidents were being held. I don't know if any got out. So that would release the anti regime people if it worked. And I don't know about that. They struck the Revolutionary Guard units. This is all before the ceasefire and some other place that was involved with Iranian regime security. So it looked like Israel was doing its best to maybe create a situation for regime change without being too directly involved on the ground because it was just bombs falling from the air. I don't know if that would have worked, but I doubt it. I doubt it would have been enough for a regime change. But then Trump on Sunday, he teased the idea of regime change, but he didn't say America would do it or Israel. He just said, quote, it's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Now, that was very clever. Because if you're in Iran and you see the President of the United States who just dropped 12 bombs through six holes, which is really impressive that your military can pull that off. And 14 bunker bouncers in total. And then you see that same guy talking about regime change, even if he's just sort of talking around the edges of it, how does that make you feel? It makes you feel like he can wake up in five minutes and just say, do we have one more of those bunker busters? Because we Know where the Supreme Leader is? Probably. We do. We probably know exactly where he is. So does that make a difference? It might have. It might have made a difference. So if you're doing a persuasion filter on this, the persuasion filter, this is brilliant. It's brilliant to say that regime change is in the offing, like it's one of the options, but without saying that you would be part of it, knowing that we could. We could be part of it. So I think that might have been one of the. One of the most important parts of getting to the ceasefire, maybe that Trump kept in play, the idea that regime change. You know, I'm not saying I'd do it. I'm not saying we should do it. I'm just saying that why wouldn't it happen? I mean, it'd be good for Iran, wouldn't it? So that was probably just perfect for the time and the place and the person and the situation. Perfect. Now, apparently, Iran never really had much of a option for mining the streets of Hormuz or closing that off, because they would have destroyed their own economy. And the US and Israel would probably go. So the two entities that Iran was most angry at, the US And Israel, not terribly affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been closed, and we probably could have opened it up again with, know, a certain amount of work, and it just would have made all the neighbors more angry at Iran than they already were. So that wasn't really much of an option. And apparently having Russia as one of your closest allies doesn't help at all. It didn't help Syria, and apparently it's not helping Iran. They. They got zero military help from. From Russia. All right, you probably heard that after the deadline for the ceasefire that Iran fired a missile that killed some family in Israel, and Israel just decided that it would stop it. And then Israel. How can somebody know me and not know that I'm on a live show at this time of day, every day? How in the world. Anyway, don't message me this time of day. Anyway, Trump was very unhappy that Iran broke the ceasefire, according to Israel, and then Israel apparently unloaded every missile it had while the clock was still ticking on the ceasefire. And Trump was very angry. He was very angry at Iran, which is baseline, but he was really angry at Israel for basically embarrassing him because he'd already named it the 12 Day War. Now, that's not the big problem, but. But he probably said to himself what you and I are saying to ourselves, which is, if Trump pulls this off, it's going to be Hard to not count him as the best president of all time. And it looks like he might pull it off. It's looking good at the moment. Anything could happen. But if you caught his brief presser where he was talking to reporters before he got in the helicopter, he sent him off to a NATO meeting. He used the F word. And I gotta say, I don't want to make this whole podcast just praising Trump, but it's hard not to. I mean, he did so many things right and continues to do so many things right on this situation that what am I going to do? Like, even, even the Democrats are saying, oh, okay, that was pretty good. So here's what I like. So this is what Trump said. I want to get his exact quote. Well, he just said he dropped the F bomb for some reason, I didn't write it down, but he said he's. He said that the two countries have been fighting so long that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. And he used the. Used the actual F word on a live interview before he got in his helicopter. Now, if you were. I think that message was more to Israel than it was to Iran. But, you know, because Iran seemed to be signaling that they really didn't want a ceasefire, and why wouldn't they? Really, it would make sense that they would want one. But Israel may have been a little, you know, maybe they had not achieved all of their goals. You know, Israel might want to continue taking out the ballistic missile manufacturing. I don't know if there's any left, but they had a sub goal of making sure that Iran didn't have the ballistic missile capability either. And then we speculate, but it was not directly said that Israel might really want a regime change. And the recent bombing would suggest that they were, yeah, kind of interested in that. So Trump's in this situation where everybody wonders, hey, is Israel wagging the dog here? Now, let's see, are they the tail wagging the dog? Is that the right use? How many times, how many times have you said to yourself, hey, looks like Israel is, you know, sort of manipulating our government. It's one of the most common things you see, right. At least in social media. Oh, APAC is controlling our government and Trump is just doing what Israel wants? Well, here was the situation where maybe Israel wanted to go a little bit longer and get a little bit more done. Maybe, we don't know. And it looks like Trump was saying, if you do this, you're going to snatch away from me one of the greatest accomplishments of any president. Ever. And just imagine those two possibilities. One, the greatest president ever pulling off the Kobayashi Maru. The impossible. The impossible ceasefire, maybe. The other possibility was that Israel would embarrass him in public and that would be his brand forever. That Israel pushed him around and he was just a puppet to Israel. Those were his two possibilities. And when he said to the press that. That they've been fighting so long they don't know what the fuck they're doing, and that it was reported that he had what has been described as a firm phone call with Netanyahu, do you think he used any F words when he was talking to Netanyahu? Oh, I'll bet he did. I'll bet he did. And he's really good at knowing when to drop the F word. So Trump was put in a situation where he could be forever one of the greatest presidents doing one of the most impressive things you've ever seen any president ever do, or he could be turned into a chump by Netanyahu. So how would you like to be Netanyahu and be on the other end of that conversation? You would not. You would not. So I'm pretty sure that Trump made sure that Israel knew that there would be a price, and I don't know what that price would be, but I'm sure he suggested that there would be a price and not a price that Netanyahu would want to pay. So at the moment, and things are changing by the minute, but as the firing of missiles and bombs stopped, can anybody confirm to me in the comments, I think it might be. Maybe it's not nighttime, so maybe there wouldn't be any missiles anyway. I don't know what time it is over there anyway. So here's my take on Israel influencing America versus America influencing Israel. I feel like it's more of a sibling situation, meaning that, yes, it's true that AIPAC has a big influence on American policy about Israel. It's all overt, it's transparent, it's legal, we can talk about every element of it. There's no surprises there. But it's also true, and I think we're seeing it in spades here, is that the United States has so much to offer in terms of being an ally of Israel that sometimes we're going to insist on stuff and Israel is going to say, that's not the fight I want to fight. This is probably one of those. So, no, it's not true that Israel pushes America around in every situation whenever they want. It's definitely true that they influence American policy and it's definitely true that you just watch Trump very much influence Israeli military and political policy right there. So it's a two way street. So more like siblings, you know, you can influence your sibling, your sibling can influence you. Nobody thinks there's a problem with that. So maybe it's not. So maybe it's not as bad as we imagine it to be. It works both ways. Anyway, let's see what else is happening. So one of my questions about Iran is we haven't seen the Ayatollah. He's allegedly in a bunker somewhere and he is 86 years old and he might not be totally with it. So one of the possibilities is that the Ayatollah is in Joe Biden territory, where basically the auto pen is deciding Iranian policy. And I'm joking about the auto pan. But imagine you were the top rung of, let's say you're the second rung of Iranian leadership. So you're not the Supreme Leader, but you're the next level down. The dozens of people who are the next level down. And let's say you got him into a bunker. What power would he have if he said, bring me a telephone, I want to make some orders? What if you said no? What if you just said no? You, you don't seem like you're in good shape. Maybe you should take a nap. Maybe you will put out some orders and say they're from you. I wonder if maybe part of the reason it was hard to get a ceasefire and part of the reason it seemed like we were getting mixed messages from Iran, is that there were mixed messages and that there might have been maybe some insiders who were trying to minimize the Supreme Leader's position. Maybe some of them were trying to support him. And if I had to guess, we would not have a ceasefire if the Supreme Leader was still in charge. Because I just don't think at 86 you can change your ways. I just don't think he would do a ceasefire. But would the leadership who was getting murdered every day and they needed a ceasefire to keep their own families alive, would they have said a, you know, there's 20 of us here and if we all changed our mind about who's in charge, you would have to go, so how about we make the decisions on this one and you set this one out? I feel like there's a really good possibility and this is just speculating because he's 86 and we watched the Joe Biden situation, so that's weighing on my opinion. But don't you think there's some possibility that the reason that Trump is not interested in regime change. And I think Israel just said they were not interested in regime change, although maybe they were, but they're saying they're not. Do you think one possibility is that it's already changed. Not changed in terms of the people in the street rising up, but changed in terms of maybe the second or third in command who is a little more rational about, you know, Iranian long term survival. You know, maybe, maybe number two or number three has just said, all right, we're done. You know, the Supreme Leader is going to get all of us killed and it's going to happen pretty quickly. So let's, let's lock him in that bunker, take his phone away, and if anybody asks, we'll say the Supreme Leader said this. We're just passing it along. So I feel like we might hear something about the leadership in Iran in the next few weeks. That's my guess, anyway. So Trump has said he doesn't want to see regime change. CNN and msnbc, I went immediately to their coverage today to see how they would handle what might be the most impressive presidential thing that anybody ever did. And they were, of course, having trouble with it. So they would talk about, well, we don't know if all the nuclear facilities are completely destroyed because that would take, you know, it might take weeks and somebody would have to be in the ground. And, you know, it's hard to tell. You can't tell by looking at it from the outside. And you don't know if they moved anything. You know, maybe they relocated some stuff, maybe they had some centrifuges that were not installed but were manufactured. What if this is me talking, not the CNN or msnbc, but what if Iran had moved its enriched uranium? And what if they had a few centrifuges that they had manufactured or somehow purchased and they were not yet hooked up? Well, if they were not yet hooked up, they could have been just in storage in some innocuous warehouse. And then whenever they wanted to reinstitute their nuclear program, all they'd have to do is say, how about a ceasefire? Yeah, you totally destroyed all of our nuclear facilities. Oh, even if we wanted to, we couldn't build a bomb now. No, no, no, no, we could never do it. But at the same time, they're being consistent with their past practices. They might use the ceasefire just to have time to reconstitute their nuclear threat. I think I saw some estimates that it might take a year or two to get back to where they were to Which I say I'm pretty sure they would be willing to wait a year or two. Even if it's five years, don't you think they would have planned for how to reconstitute before they lost everything? Do you think there's any chance that they didn't at least plan to move the enriched uranium so that nobody knew where it was? Now, I heard some people say online, and this is a terrible take, Scott, you fool, don't you know that Israel was watching everything from the sky? And there's no way, there's no way they could have moved that uranium because it would have been spotted by Israel and they would have bombed those trucks. Well, was it the New York Times that was reporting that there was just dozens of big trucks that pulled up to the Ford out nuclear site before the bombing? If you were going to move some uranium and you had, let's say, 40 trucks and all those trucks could carry all of the uranium, would you spread it across, let's say, three to five trucks, and then all the rest could be decoys? Could it be that the US Is not the only one who uses decoys? You know, we use those decoy B2 bombers. What if Israel was watching and they saw 40 trucks pull up and they. They thought, we don't know what's happening with those trucks and we don't know what's on them, and we don't know which ones are full of uranium potentially, and which ones are decoys. So is Iran capable enough? Do they plan ahead enough? Are they motivated enough that they would have had a plan to save their program, to make it easier to reconstitute? Well, of course. Of course they are. Now, I don't know if they did, but yes, they are capable enough and smart enough, and it would be consistent with everything we've watched that they would have put some amount of effort into protecting what they had in a way that would make it easy to reconstitute. Now, some people said, oh, you'll never move those enrichment facilities because once they're installed, it'd just be too hard to rip them down and move them. But remember, if they had those in the first place, it means they know how to get them or make them. And so maybe they had a few extra laying around that had never been installed. You don't know. So I ask you this question. Who benefits the most from a ceasefire? Israel probably wanted to go a little bit longer, even though they said two weeks. So it would have been good if they stuck to two weeks, but they might have wanted to do a little extra. The US Were better off with a ceasefire unless Iran rebuilds its offensive capabilities. But Iran is the one who wins the hardest, right, because they stop the immediate bleeding and they still have a full possibility, which they may not pursue, to rebuild their facilities. Now, Trump has said there's no way that they're going to rebuild their facilities. Things are completely demolished. I do think that maybe the fact that we acted so effectively against what they had, and the fact that Israel has penetrated their spies, have penetrated Iran so effectively that we would know if they plan to reconstitute. So it's very possible that Trump has indirectly caused a change in leadership. In other words, the second or third in command might actually be in command. We just don't know it yet. And we might have found. We might have found somebody who said, you know what? None of that worked. None of that building a nuclear deterrent worked. It was terrible. You know what? None of our proxies turned out well. They all just got destroyed by Israel. And you know what? Their spies are so good that we can't make a move without them knowing it. So there's a very good chance that Trump has pulled off the impossible, which is convinced Iran not to reconstitute their threat and instead to rebuild and just enjoy the prosperity that could come with being part of the rest of the world. And remember, it's not like Russia helped them out militarily or really much in any other way. I don't think they're giving it much money or anything. So we'll see. But CNN and msnbc, as Trump pointed out at the presser, are going hard at him and talking about, you know, how it might have failed or might go wrong and maybe, maybe. But at the moment, it looks like one of the greatest things any president ever pulled off. And I don't know if you can win. I don't know if you could win the Nobel Peace Prize if you ended a war by bombing the other side. Really, really good. I don't think it works that way. Right. I think the only way, the only way you get a Nobel Peace Prize is you have to be a liberal, and you have to get there by talking, even if the talking didn't really give you a lasting peace. But if you got a lasting peace by dropping some precision bunker bombs, I don't know if the Nobel Committee considers that Nobel Peace Prize material, even if it is, because the hard part was telling Israel to stand down. There's no other country that could do that. And even I might Argue there's no other president who could have done it. I don't know if, you know, any of our prior presidents could have said to Netanyahu, all right, you're going to stop right now and then make that stick. I don't know. Maybe, like I said, it's a sibling kind of relationship. So maybe any president could have done it, but it doesn't feel like, feels like an only Trump situation. So he'll benefit from that. All right, so Iran has not denounced their nuclear program. Do you feel that that's necessary? It sounds like the US Feels that's not necessary because we denounced it for them. There's no, there's no denouncing that needs to be done because there's nothing they can do. So maybe that became irrelevant, I don't know. But it's notable that Iran has not said we, we have no plans to do this again. It's notable. So they're at least keeping their options open. And they might not, they might not know how well they could reconstitute their threat until, you know, some time has passed because even they don't know what got destroyed. So, yeah, so Trump said, in a truth social, Iran will never rebuild their nuclear facilities. Maybe there's a very good chance he's right about. Oh, here's the, here's the exact quote. Israel and Iran have been fighting so long, they don't know what the they're doing. God, I love that. That. That's the Trump I love, I love. Where it's not that he swears, it's that what he does. It is so well chosen. You know, even when he would do it at rallies every now and then, he'd drop a S bomb or an F bomb. He swears so persuasively, perfectly. That was exactly the right time for an F bomb. So his F bombs are as good as his bunker buster bombs. All right, so let's check my predictions, shall we? Back on June 14, I made several predictions, two of which Trump totally ruined by his amazingly, surprisingly great work. So here are my predictions. Number one, I said there will be no organic popular uprising that removes Iran's leaders. That one was right. So I made four predictions. It looks like I got two on a four. Right, so there was no, no popular uprising. And that was based on the fact that you don't get a popular uprising when you're being bombed. Now, maybe at some point in the future, I don't know. But at least I was right about that. I said that Iran will not return to the negotiating table and give up its nuclear ambitions and mean it. So even if they did say they would negotiate, that they wouldn't mean it. Now, they did not. So technically, is that prediction correct? They did not and still haven't. They still haven't said we give up on our nuclear ambitions. So I think I would give myself the win on that one. So that's too correct. Here's what I got wrong. I said Israel will not stop attacking until they have achieved everything they want. Did they? Well, I don't think they achieved everything they wanted because they might have wanted a little bit of regime change. We'll never know. I mean, they, they say they were not aiming for regime change, but, you know, governments say things, but privately, did they want a little bit of regime change? Their, their bombing in the final days looked like they were bombing specifically to try to make it more likely that there would be a popular uprising and regime change. So I don't think they got everything they wanted and I don't think that they destroyed. I'm just. I don't know this for sure, but I don't think Israel destroyed all of the ballistic missile making capabilities or their stockpiles. Maybe they did, or maybe they got enough of them that they feel comfortable now. But I would say that ir. Israel did because of Trump. I think they did do a ceasefire that maybe was just short. Not, not that short, but just short of maybe everything they wanted. Would you agree? Is that fair? So I would say I was wrong about that because Israel got very close to everything they wanted, but maybe just short. So I'm going to say I was wrong about that one. And I said that my fourth prediction is that Israel will not be done in two weeks, 12 days. So if I wanted to be a jerk, I'd say, I told you they wouldn't be done in two weeks. They were done in 12 days. But I won't be that jerk, not today. So I'll just say, wow, it looks like Israel is going to be done in two weeks. So I would have said two months minimum. Now, is it possible that there could be some more firing coming up soon? Well, I'll tell you what, even if Israel takes another hit from more Iranian missiles, Trump is going to be on the phone with Netanyahu in about two seconds saying, did that uranium missile kill anybody? Well, maybe, yes. You're going to stand out. So I feel like Trump can keep Israel from continuing even if they wanted to. And we don't know if they wanted to because it was an expensive operation. So I'm pretty sure that Israel is also happy that they're not spending more money on that. So, meanwhile, Iran is, I saw this on Mario Novel post, but one source says that Iran is going to throw a victory party into Iran and the victory would be that they, I know, survived the war and got Israel to back down. So they're going to spin it in some way that makes it look like something good happened on their end. That's probably a good sign. Now, I don't know if this is true because I saw it from one source I'd never heard of, but if they do, if they do have a victory celebration, that would really suggest that they mean to, you know, honor the ceasefire, because you don't have a victory celebration about something that's going to keep going. So that might be good news. And let's talk about all the, the disunity in the Trump supporting world, the MAGA people. As you know, there were a number of notable personalities who were very anti war and anti us being involved directly. So Tucker Carlson, comic Dave Smith, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green, Steve Bannon, they are some of the strongest Trump supporters in general. But they had some legitimate, legitimate complaints and they had some legitimate criticisms. And here's my take. I feel like it's time to get the band back together. You know, it's sort of like, well, the band broke up for a little bit so they could argue with each other about what song to put on the album. But now it's time to put the band back together. I saw a comic, Dave Smith, do a post on X that I can't paraphrase it, but essentially he was giving Trump credit for what looks like a speedy end to the conflict. I expect the other people who had been doubting the wisdom of getting involved, I suspect that they will all come around to the point of view of, well, there was a risk and we did not necessarily trust that Trump could get this done, but damn it, he did. So it's time to get the band back together. If you're going to spend even one minute saying that other Trump supporters are pieces of crap and they got everything wrong, you're going to be like the vaccination people. Don't be like the vaccination people. Let it go. Just let it go. He did the impossible. You didn't expect it. Now, again, if we're being realistic, it could come off the rails, right? It's possible that it won't work out in the long run, but at the moment it looks amazing and I think I Wouldn't waste one minute saying, oh, Tucker Carlson, you were so wrong and evil and anti maga, don't bother because Tucker will be on your side on probably the very next issue and you need him. Steve Bannon, one of the smartest people in all the media landscape, was he wrong? Don't know. One of the things I always say is that when people make a prediction that's statistically based and things go the other way, that doesn't make them wrong. Let me say that again. If Steve Bannon and Tucker and comic Dave Smith and Marjorie Taylor Greene, to name a few, if what they were saying is that history tells us that getting directly involved almost always goes wrong and then it goes right, are they wrong? They're not. They're not wrong. They did not predict the right outcome, but they're not wrong. If they say every time we do this, it goes bad. That's true. If Trump is the first person who can Kobayashi Maru the situation and make direct military involvement go right, well, that's the unexpected low percentage bet. If you said to yourself, I trust Trump so much that I think he can defy all of history and do the Kobayashi Maru. If you're new to this, that's a Star Trek reference to doing the impossible Kobayashi Maru. It's an intentionally impossible situation that Captain Kirk still made work. They're not wrong, so don't throw them under the bus. What we needed was really strong critics, because every time the US Says, should we get directly involved in a war, do you want everybody to line up in back behind the Commander in Chief? Every time, even if they're. They're big fans of the Commander in Chief, do you want them automatically say, yeah, yeah, let's. Let's drop some bombs, let's get involved? I don't. I do not. I would say that the critics, they were kind of like the. What sharpened the knife? Do you think it made Trump try harder? Because the power and credibility of the critics, I think it did. Did it sharpen our ability to understand the entire risks so that when we got into it, we knew what we were getting into? Yes. So if you're saying to yourself, these MAGA people, I will push them off to the garbage dump for being wrong about this. I think that's the wrong take. The right frame is that every single time the US Wants to drop some bombs or get militarily involved, you want critics, you want strong critics, you want strong critics who used to be your best friend on everything else. That's what we need. So I would ask you to just be a little bit magnanimous about the fact that having people on both sides of an issue that important, very important, very useful. So, patriots. All right. Trump is mad at Thomas Massie for getting everything wrong, according to Trump. So he wants to oust Massie because I think Massie doesn't like the big, beautiful bill, and he was against Trump having the control to do the military action without Congress. And so Trump vows to oust Massie in the next Republican primary. All right, my take on Massey, which you've heard before, similar to my take on the other critics, is I love the fact that there's a Thomas Massie, because although he does look like he's an impediment to Trump doing everything he wants, there's enough. They're just enough Republicans where things will still go Trump's way, but you can hear the other side. I like that. I like the fact that he's a principled and consistent. He's principled and consistent in what he's pushing for. Now, there. There are times I disagree with him, and that's okay because you need a Massey. So I can see why Trump doesn't love it because it makes Trump's job much harder because Massie is very effective at getting attention and his views are principled. But at the same time, I love that he exists. So he's a. He's a good, good voice of reason. And if Trump can't overcome that voice of reason to get what he wants, well, I would say that that's a bar that's not too high. He can overcome it if the reason is good enough. And his instinct, you know, suggests he should. Lindsey Graham, he was pushing for regime change, but I guess he's not now. He said on Hannity, he said, let's put this in context. In a few hours, Donald Trump reversed the damage done to America by Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Well, is that going too far, do you think the military's massive failure in withdrawing from Afghanistan, which we would call Biden's failure, do you think that the massively successful bombing kind of neutralizes that a little bit? A little bit. It's not the thing that I would have focused on. It's not the thing that I would have said, oh, let's talk about how this makes the Afghanistan thing go away. That wouldn't be where my interest was, but, yeah, a little bit. Then Representative Hakeem Jeffries, he's still on this point. He says the use of military force, which is offensive in nature, must be approved by the House and the Senate. That's according to the Constitution. It's not optional, Donald. It's not how many voters give a shit about that? You know, one of the things I say all the time is that success fixes everything. So we've got this weird situation where Congress doesn't seem to be as involved as they should. According to our system, when they. When a president, whether it's Trump or presidents, get involved in military action. Now, if the military action had failed spectacularly, then probably a lot of people would listen to Hakeem Jeffrey's opinion and said, you know, if the Congress had been involved, maybe we could avoided. Avoided this problem. But it didn't go that way. Instead, it looks like a massive success for Trump and the military. Now, when you have a massive success, like just massive, do you think the public says, ooh, but you know, they didn't cross all the T's and dot all the I's. There was a constitutional step they should have taken. Well, maybe some of them, but I would expect that Trump's approval level is going to go up a little bit. I do not think that the Hakeem Jeffries, oh, sure, it was one of the greatest successes of any president plus military that we've ever seen. And then say, but he shouldn't have done it. He should have consulted with us first. The Democrats are just so consistent at finding the only thing that nobody gives a shit about and turning that into their main issue. And there, let's see what else the Democrats are doing. That's funny. So Rosie o' Donnell, who's at her right away in Ireland, according to Breitbart, she's promoting a recount of Trump's victory over Harris in 2024. What could be better? I can't think of anything that would be better for Republicans than for famous Democrats to be questioning the integrity of our elections. I feel like Hakeem Jeffries, you know, is going to want to fly over to Ireland and. And start slapping Rosie o' Donnell and just say, shut up, shut up. Because you can't say that. You can't suggest that Trump stole the election in 2024 without simultaneously saying our elections are vulnerable. So good luck, Rosie. Trump says that oil prices have dropped, which I imagine they have because the risk is now lower. So Trump's got lower oil prices. He's got the victory of all victories if it holds. And polymarket says that the odds of Trump getting a Nobel Peace Prize have surged to a new record high of 10%. It's only 10%. I saw a post on X by a user called who points out that the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites did not create a single protest in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, uae, Qatar, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, and most importantly, in Iran itself. So how close is Trump to improving the Abraham Accords to get Saudi Arabia and everybody else in there? Really close. Because what you don't realize, because we're focusing on the bombs, the ceasefire, if it holds, is going to make it possible for the. The Abraham Accords, which already have some of the Middle east countries involved, it's going to allow the rest of them to join because it's going to look like Iran, which was always the fly in the ointment. It looks like it's been neutralized, at least for now. So there is a part two of this victory that's as big as this, and it's not guaranteed, but it's pretty close. Pretty close to being guaranteed. I would say that Saudi Arabia has probably already decided to join the Abraham Accords, and they're waiting for the right moment and the right way to do it. And whether you think this is good or bad, Gaza has been largely forgotten. Now, I don't want to minimize the, you know, tragedy and the death and despair that's going on there, but our attention has been completely diverted, and that's good for Israel for doing what it wants to do in Gaza. I don't know if the Gaza situation will prevent the Abraham Accords from growing to their next obvious level. It might, but at the same time, it looks like the Iranian situation is bigger. And I've got a feeling that something good is going to happen really soon with the Abraham Accords. We'll see. Meanwhile, Trump is over at going to NATO. He might be there already. No, probably not there already, but close. And he's set to meet with Zelensky of Ukraine. So do you think, is it possible that because of Trump's big victory with Iran, do you think that that would make him more likely to get something done with Ukraine? There's no reason it should. Right. They're completely unconnected things, but sometimes psychology is a real lever. Do you think that Putin and Zelensky are so impressed with what Trump just did in Iran? Are they so impressed that it's easier for them to say, all right, it's time? Maybe I wouldn't bet on it, so if my money were involved, I wouldn't bet on it. But it does feel like the psychology has moved so firmly in Trump's favor that Anything else he wants to get done is a little bit more likely. And like I say, there's no connection between Ukraine and Israel and Iran. There's no direct connection. But in your mind, it's hard to disconnect them because you just watched him do the impossible. And so you say to yourself, can he do that again? Can he do that twice? Maybe. So we'll see if anything happens there. The Supreme Court also gave Trump another win. He's having one hell of a week. What a week. The Supreme Court ruled that Trump is allowed to deport violent illegals to countries that they are not from. So I don't know how much they wanted to do that, but it's legal now. And even so, there's a Boston judge who's decided to overrule the Supreme Court and not allow it. So I don't know what happens to a Boston judge when the Supreme Court has ruled and you decide to directly and grossly go against this ruling. But we'll find out. So that's another big win for Trump. And then apparently the Trump administration got a pledge from 75% of the health insurers to get rid of some big bureaucratic mess that was preventing people from getting good coverage. Something to do with reducing insurance companies prior authorization requirements. So I don't know the whole details there, but apparently this so called prior authorization requirement was causing people just not to get the health care they needed. And it looks like the Trump administration has got them all to say, yeah, we're going to take care of that then. Also, as Axios is reporting, there is some chance, I don't know the odds, that Trump's big, beautiful bill gets approved before July 4th. Now, I don't think it needs to be, you know, approved before July 4th, but one of the things that I think I've taught you persuasion wise, is if you put an artificial deadline on something, it makes it more likely to happen. Like way more likely. Now, is July 4th a natural deadline or a totally artificial deadline? It's totally artificial. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. However, the fact that it's nice and not necessary might make it a lot more likely that it happens. So it's possible that Trump will also get the win of all wins by getting his big, beautiful bill passed. Now, I have my own criticisms about the spending, but there's no doubt that it would be seen as a giant victory for Trump and MAGA if he gets that pass. So again, I say Trump is having the summer of all summers, like I've Never seen anything like this. Really. This is really impressive. So we'll see if he keeps up the winds. I hadn't talked about this before because I thought it was too much of a local story in New York, but apparently a socialist might become the next mayor of New York. This guy, zoran Mamdani, a 33 year old guy with a very light resume for politics, but he's a socialist. And what he's promising, which apparently has brought him to, at least in polling, looking like he might win over. Who was he running against? Andrew Cuomo. So here's what he's promising for New York City. He wants to freeze rents on rent stabilized apartments. He wants to invest 70 billion, I don't know where that comes from, in publicly subsidized housing. He wants to open up public land for housing developments and more. He wants free bus rides and government owned grocery stores. Government owned grocery stores. You know what, I've actually thought about that idea before. I know all of you are going to say, but Scott, you can't have government owned grocery stores. They will ruin everything they touch. To which I say, I wonder, I wonder if you had a government owned grocery store that didn't have all the products. Maybe it didn't have cleaning products and all the extras, but what if it had like a really low cost, good protein? And what if it had only food that RFK Jr. Would say, you know, what if you eat this food, you're going to be a lot healthier. And so they wouldn't necessarily focus on just price, which could be lower, but maybe also health. And maybe if people spend a lot of time shopping there, it would cause the, it would cause the for profit stores to compete. So maybe someday you don't need the government store. Maybe the regular stores say, all right, we'll have a section with low cost, high protein, good for you stuff maybe. So the, the trouble with all these socialist ideas is they, they tend to sound good on paper. And if you don't live in the real world, but in the real world, the government does ruin everything it touches. And if you put restrictions on the price of rentals, nobody's gonna increase the number of rentals. So the, the newspaper in Chicago who has their own, they have their own socialist mayor, Brandon Johnson. This is what the Chicago Tribune said about the possibility of New York getting a socialist mayor. So Chicago Tribune says that the ending isn't pretty. The ending isn't pretty. The first part is very pretty. Oh, wow. So I'll be able to rent an apartment without it being Too expensive. Oh, I like it. Oh, I'll be able to ride a bus for free. Oh, good idea. I love it. Oh, I'll be able to go to a government grocery store and get low cost groceries. Oh, love it. Very pretty. But as the Chicago Tribune points out, the ending isn't pretty because they're at the ending point and it's not pretty. All right, meanwhile, as you already know, the Tesla Robo taxis have rolled out for testing in Austin. And how big a deal is that? Well, here's a post by Bindu Reddy who says if Tesla Robo Taxi beats Waymo and Uber on price and speed, it will become the world's most valuable company. So Tesla is on the cusp of being the world's most valuable company. That's before robots. Let me say that again. Tesla is on the verge of becoming the most valuable company in the world before they've even rolled out a robot. And the robot business could be bigger than anything they've ever done. Now, I should tell you that I do own Tesla stock, so I'm not unbiased at all, but watching Elon Musk make all the right moves on the biggest stuff. Largest. So I see a post. I don't know when this was, but it looks like Israel's looking to drop some bombs and Trump is warning them again. I don't know if that's new. That might, that might be old news. We'll catch up on that afterwards. Meanwhile, in Florida, according to Newsmax, Florida is going to build a holding place in the swamp for migrant migrants they want to detain that need to be shipped back, I guess. And the only reason I'm reading this story, because there's nothing interesting about a migrant facility, is that they're going to call it the Alligator Alcatraz. I just like the branding Alligator Alcatraz. So that's where I guess that was nicknamed by the Attorney General, James Othmier, the Alligator Alcatraz. And then Ukraine is reporting, according to Newsmax, that they thwarted an assassination attempt against Zelensky. And there was some Polish guy who was working for Russia who tried to, allegedly he tried to get a drone to kill Zelensky, but they foiled the attack. Now, my, my prediction is I feel like all politicians will be too vulnerable to drone attacks when they're traveling. Maybe not so much when they're in their own, you know, in their own headquarters. But I don't see how leaders could go out in public in like one year, a year from now. Every individual who wants to assassinate a World leader will be able to launch a drone that can't be jammed. And they'll just say, all right, here's the GPS coordinate. But if that doesn't work, just use facial recognition and build a little AI into it. I feel like the ability to assassinate a world leader is going to go to. Yeah, you can do it every time they go out in public, because the drones will just be that good anyway. According to Wallahub, the Epoch Times was reporting San Francisco is America's worst run city. I like to mention all the times that my state is considered the worst of the worst, but there it is. However, I would tell you that San Francisco has been bad before and got over it. I lived in San Francisco in the 80s when I was very young and first came to California. And here's my record. So in the 80s, living in San Francisco, I got robbed twice at gunpoint when I was a bank teller in downtown San Francisco. Once by a gun in a parking lot after work, once by a large knife on Market Street. Got mugged. That one I got away, so I didn't give him any money. And my apartment was burgled once and my car stereo was robbed I think four times. So I think there were four times I walked outside and saw my window broken and my stereo gone. So that's what it was like in the 80s, and it got way better. So there's still some chance it might improve, but it's not looking good at the moment. Meanwhile, New York State is planning to build a nuclear power plant, the governor just announced, which would be a big deal and probably it would not be possible, except Trump had done a bunch of executive orders to reduce the. The regulatory burden. So New York may be benefiting from Trump's getting rid of the regulatory burden. If in fact that worked, then the coolest invention I've seen lately. I don't think I mentioned this before, but there's a company called NuScale that's in the nuclear power plant. Advanced technology, kind of the new way to build a nuclear power plant. But they're engineering a system. They haven't built it yet, but they're looking to integrate the production of the electricity in their atomic plant, nuclear plant, but they would match that with water desalination and production of hydrogen, which could be used as a green fuel. So they would make electricity, clean water and hydrogen all at the same time. So whatever's happening in the nuclear field, it's really big and it's really dynamic. And I. I also have some investments in one fund that is a fund that has a number of nuclear, nuclear assets in it. So I'm not objective, but I think it's a safe bet that the nuclear industry is going to get a lot bigger. It just feels like there's no way to stop that. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for today. It's another, another wonderful day. We'll follow the news and find out if Trump's victory is holding. There will, of course, be challenges to it. I would not be surprised if there are some breaks in the ceasefire. But I think there's a good chance that Trump will be able to hold it all together. So we'll see. All right, I'm going to talk to the the beloved local subscribers privately. And the rest of you, thanks for joining. I will see you same time tomorrow. All right, Locals coming at you privately.